Beware of all jokes requiring punch lines

This may be beside the main point of your piece, but why are set-up/ punch-line jokes and slapstick among the lowest forms of comedy? Dosen't most comedy fall into one or both of those two categories? Don't all jokes require a contrived set up to allow the writer to dish out the comic goods? Maybe the way these forms of comedy are applied today (on shows like Mr. Maher's) are inadequate, but it seems to me a bit excessive to dismiss these forms altogether as a result.

JE: I'm just expressing my personal taste in comedy. The set-up/punch-line rhythms of most stand-ups and sitcoms strike me as dull and soporific. Ever been around somebody who likes to "tell jokes"? No quicker way to drain the energy from a room. It's hell on Earth. Pretty soon everybody has a rictus grin. My favorite kind of humor isn't so explicit. It's behavioral, contextual. A line that isn't funny on the page may be hilarious when delivered in context and "in character." I say this as somebody who always found Bob Hope -- a guy who bought jokes from all kinds of talented gag writers -- bewilderingly unfunny. Yet I think Steven Wright is funny, and he basically does one-liners.

Hi, Jim.

When I commented on your original Bill Maher entry, I was trying (as much as possible) to put myself in Bill Maher's shoes, and to perceive some reasoning behind his criticism of President Obama. The reasoning I came up with was his previously-expressed despair at just how trivial American politics has become. Elections are won or lost on whether someone considers themselves elitist, or whether their attack ads cross the line, or whether someone loses it and yells "Yee-ha!" And, personally, I'd tend to agree with Mr. Maher on that. Canadian politics are often trivialized too, and I could wish that the electorate had a bit longer attention span and more will to focus on the issues, as boring as that might be. But...this is...important stuff, right?

But this column made me turn my perception around to try to see things from President Obama's viewpoint. Your citation of Kevin Drum's blog entry is pretty much how I (like to think I would) govern were I in office. Patient, compromising where necessary, not letting others stampede me into positions I don't need to take, etc. So I can approve of President Obama's steadfastness not to jump before he has to.

But I wonder if he isn't expending his political capital. So many leaders take office and institute "100 days of change" at the beginning of their term, because their political capital will never be higher and they can get away with things that they won't be able to later. And I wonder if President Obama isn't making a strategic mistake in not doing the same. By the time he chooses which battle to fight, he might not have anything to fight with.

The other thing I wonder is if he isn't like the Pharoah Ankhenaten. When I was much younger, I read a history of Egypt which simplistically portrayed Ankhenaten as a counter-reformist - that he tried to single-handedly return Egypt to an older form of its religion; when he died, the priesthood just continued on as if he hadn't happened, and Egypt continued on its path of decline.

Simplistic, and not (as I've later learned) a strictly accurate interpretation. But the image stays with me, and I wonder if President Obama isn't the United States' version of that Pharoah - trying to bring the country back to its former greatness of spirit, but doomed in the end to only hold back the tide for a time.

(Hmm...checks...yes, still taking my meds :) )

What about Groucho Marx?

JE: I worship Groucho. He's the perfect example of delivery, context and character making the material work. He did monologues on stage and in movies, but the rapid-fire delivery and tempo change-ups were usually designed to confuse another character (best played by Margaret Dumont). He and Chico were each other's best foils.

You can't seriously rate it a lower form of comedy than puns! Puns require no sense of humor at all, just a knowledge of words that sound similar. There is no baser form of humor than the pun.

This reminds me of an awful Dear Abby I read:

http://www.uexpress.com/dearabby/?uc_full_date=20080723

Yes, your co-workers will get mad at you. Not because your puns are so clever they will make them feel stupid. Because puns are awful.

JE: Tell that to Shakespeare! I am an ardent defender of the pun -- not necessarily as a punch-line, but as a throwaway that reveals some quirk of the language. That's what I like about them: at best, they display a delight in playing with words. (Groucho: "We took some pictures of the native girls but they weren't developed. But we're going back again in a couple of weeks..." The pun is on "developed," but the key word is "they." I like that.)

Set up/punch line jokes aren't the lowest form of comedy. (The lowest form of comedy is the pun.) All comedy requires set up; some setups are just more obvious and hamfisted than others.

I'm still chilled about the Beck clip. National Socialism may have been the name of the party, but fascism and totalitarianism was the agenda. It just reinforces my belief that "right" and "left" are relative terms -- and slippery ones, at that -- and that anyone who uses such terms as a yardstick of his own beliefs is only allowing someone else to plant thoughts in his head. Talking heads like Beck are harming our culture -- not because their opinions are dangerous, but because of the way they place those opinions in the framework of "right" or "left," and thus make those opinions seem a part of political orthodoxy. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism: it doesn't matter if it's Islamic or Republican, once you start denying others the ability to have dissenting views, you become toxic to the culture.

Also on the subject of jokes, I've noticed over the years -- through all my ridiculous Internet adventures -- that it seems like certain cheesy set-up/punchline jokes that would fall dead in "real life" can actually be really funny in writing. The joke that starts this post is a perfect example:

U.S. Senate apologizes for slavery and segregation: http://bit.ly/G46Cu. Bob Byrd breaks down on Senate floor. "Too soon. Too soon."

Now imagine that joke actually being told, as if by a Jay Leno. The way I imagine it sounding in my mind, it just doesn't work -- it's a joke that depends on the cold, dispassionate sterility of Internet text for its delivery.

I think that also gets to what Jim is saying about comedy that's "behavioral, contextual." Jay Leno telling this joke? Not very funny. But think about the kind of jokes that George Carlin would tell when he was "reading the news." Structurally, they're very similar, but in that character (or in that context that he creates), they work -- it allows for a delivery that's similarly dispassionate and unaffected.

Great comedy -- especially in stand-up -- is performance art. A joke can be funny on paper, but that doesn't mean you can get away with simply reading it aloud on stage... unless, like Carlin and Steven Wright, you've conjured a character and context that allows you to get away with it. (Or as Jim said, the reverse is true as well -- a joke that isn't funny on paper can, in the right context and with the right delivery, be hilarious when performed.)

No fair, Jim! That was a play on words, not a pun. And it was pretty hilarious. Especially Groucho's delivery. I was thinking more along the lines of "Rectum? Nearly killed him!" (I'm still not even sure that there's a setup to that line, i've only heard the punch line - hey it's both a pun and a setup/punchline joke!). I thought a pun required misusing a similar sounding word, not using a word with more than one meaning. I could be wrong though. If that kind of wordplay does count as a pun, I stand corrected.

JE: I think it encompasses all those things. Dictionary definition of "pun":

n. A play on words, sometimes on different senses of the same word and sometimes on the similar sense or sound of different words.

"There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear"

I think this is close to my problem: I hate when people try to fix irrationalities by throwing at it more irrationalities. Yes, Michael Bay sucks, but for the love of god don't LIE about or exaggerate your(not you specifically) gripes with his movies, why can't we just shoot straight?

I feel the need to put my opinions aside and be a superhero for objective truth because of all the incessant lying and wholly self-limited perception I see around me every second of the day.

OH THE RAGEEE! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!! *head explodes*

The diverse comedic analyst can appreciate the pun, the one-liner, the humorous story, the stand-up routine, the witty commentary, the rapid-fire gag delivery, and the multitude of other comic forms that exist. No one form is superior to the other. What matters is how well they are done. A brilliant man can deliver a brilliant pun; see Shakespeare, William. A great set-up and delivery artist can have many a sour face rolling in the aisle. I saw a Youngman performance years ago as the final act after several stand-up routines; Youngman's material was old as sand but it was a whole lot funnier than what preceded it. What we seem to be forgetting increasingly in this society is that it is as much about who as it is about what.

JE: Well put. There are so many layers to good comedy. I couldn't stand Georgie Jessel's schtick, but I'm sort of enchanted by his fellow vaudevillian Henny Youngman's delivery.

I think spontaneity is key when it comes to comedy, which is why so many stand-up routines or late-night monologues are terribly unfunny, because you're expecting the punchline, rather than being caught off guard by it.

As an extension of this idea, I'd argue that, to myself, and clearly many film critics, dramas or suspense films with random, sideways comedic moments tend to be funnier than straight comedies where you're expecting a humourous beat every 30 seconds. It's sort of because good "dramedies" tend to be more firmly rooted in (somewhat) naturalistic behaviour than most mainstream comedies, where character often takes a back seat to superficial jokes, rather than the latter being genuinely informed by the former.

And it goes without saying that if you're constantly considering the motives of the joke teller rather than just responding instinctually in the moment, you're very rarely going to find much humour, because it's already passed you by.

once you start denying others the ability to have dissenting views, you become toxic to the culture.

I think certain dissenting views ought not to be allowed. Say, politics based on racism. We now look at this and take it as a given, but it's been the platform of western nations in fairly recent times, and is still the underlying basis of a lot of ostensibly political opinion in this country. But we at least now consider it not polite to speak OPENLY, or be too blatant about.

But I think some other views ought to become as stigmatized as racism (actually only racism against blacks - other racism is not too stigmatized in the US at all), and these include views about class. Classism is a scourge. And it's difficult to respect the views of someone who thinks a large per centage of people are inherently inferior to a small group of people, of which they just happen to be a part - but because of class, not race. Yet if you took any national politician aside and got him to be candid (sodium pentathol, is it called? otherwise forget it), he would acknowledge he holds views on class on the relative worth of people that really ought to be deeply offensive to everyone - but probably aren't, mostly because the very people he would presumably be insulting have been taught to believe it. Really it's almost magic, to get a lot of lower middle class people to support policies that favor the super wealthy, while blaming their problems on 'welfare queens' and 'grasping beggars'.

So no, I think certain opinions and ways of looking at the world are evil. And we should tolerate them only so far as is necessary to understand them. Then we should do everything we can to marginalize them. But fat chance of that in a country where 'socialism' - aka, the Beatitudes - is a bad word.

JE: And evil festers in the dark, which is why the most toxic, evil, hateful speech needs to be exposed. That's what the First Amendment is for. I don't necessarily think that human beings (who have a terrible record of governing themselves if you look at the past and present state of the world) will necessarily make the best decisions, but once you start banning certain kinds of speech you only add to its power and allure.

The whole issue of who is on the Left and who is on the Right is pretty confusing. Really, the problem is not that Nazi's are too far to the Left, but rather, that Glenn Beck is almost as far Left as one can go, in the classical-liberal sense. Fascism is the far Right, no matter what they say, it's using government force in order to maintain a traditional (outdated) way of life. That's the original definition of the Right. The point was to maintain aristocracy. Socialism is liberalism of the Right, using big government to usurp the traditional way of doing things (hence, progressive). Based on my limited knowledge of him, Beck is, in the traditional sense, probably the biggest liberal on TV. And Bill O'Reilly is the biggest fascist, despite the fact that they seem politically aligned. I probably should have recommended taking a few grains of salt before reading this, but I think it all adds up.

It’s not that your opinion isn’t valid because of your left-leaning political views, but that the opinion piece on Bill Maher appears to be very biased by them. While your political views do not invalidate what you write, they can, to different degrees, influence your writing immensely. It just so happens that the first time Bill Maher criticized Barack Obama, you lambasted him, labeled him a hack, and wrote a lengthy article on why you believe Maher to be a poor comedian. However, this raises the question, why did you only call him out on his faulty humor when he criticized Obama? If he is a poor comedian, and in your opinion makes jokes of this low-caliber all the time, why did you only call him out now? Why not raise these concerns when he was criticizing Bush or Cheney?

Your bias was also showing when you point out other comedians/political pundits that you dislike, namely Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, whereas mention that you like Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert. You also mention that this has nothing to do with their political stances, but this seems quite far-fetched. It just so happens that you dislike all the Republican commentators and enjoy all the Democrat commentators. You say that it’s because Stewart and Colbert have better delivery, better style, etc, but is it really?

Of course you have reasons to dislike Maher’s comedic op-ed on Obama, but what I believe people are wondering is whether you dislike the op-ed for those reasons, or if you dislike it because of its politics and have just found some more legitimate reasons for disliking it. If you look hard enough, one can find justifiable reasons for disliking anything. The mainstream media, which is mainly left-leaning, seems to be criticizing anyone who dare speak out against Obama. It is an attempt at demonizing and illegitimatizing anyone who doesn’t support Obama. Even amongst friends, I’ve been called a racist for not supporting Obama. No one is saying that your comments are invalid because of your political views, but pointing out that you are perhaps engaging in this practice of ridiculing/lambasting/demonizing anyone who criticizes Obama.

I feel the same way about Kael and her musicological diad, Robert Christgau. I agree with a majority of their opinions (maybe less so for Christgau - I have the audacity to enjoy prog rock even if you "can't dance to it"), but I almost never agree with the pseudo-analytical snark that brought them to those opinions. On the other hand, I don't always agree with Bordwell, but I'm enamored of the steely logic and careful analysis by which he arrives at his conclusions.

So I completely agree (ha!) that the whole agree/disagree issue is moot, a red herring, a distraction. If you like someone only because you agree with them, then all you're really looking for is a mirror through which you can (spuriously) validate your own opinions. And if all you really wish is to feel that you're always 'right,' then you aren't much of a thinker at all. The true test of intelligence is understanding how little you ultimately know; the true test of critical thinking is understanding that the value lies in the journey, not the destination.

I think it boils down to a matter of ego-thought versus critical-thought, and the erroneous assumption that one can substitute for the other. Kael and Christgau express themselves almost solely through ego, whereas someone like Bordwell seems to be thinking on another level. I also think that's why Stewart/Colbert come off as far more viable than Maher, even though they're all in the same basic niche. Maher is pure ego, whereas Stewart/Colbert are not. Indeed, Colbert's schtick is essentially a parody of ego.

And, of course, anyone who disagrees with me is totally wrong and stooopid.

Just a thought on comedy here. It's very noticeable that a lot of the more eloquent, interesting comedians from the UK are virtually unheard of in the States. Daniel Kitson, Dylan Moran, Mark Watson have a less straightforward way with material than even the alternative comedians (Cross, Oswalt etc) in the US. It's probably a mix of touring/exposure/taste, but you guys are missing out on some great stuff.

I agree about argument fallacies and all that, but I really think you should stop attacking moral relativism, which is actually a sensible idea. It makes sense that we cannot blame someone for acting according to his social norms, even if they are different from our own. The only problems come when moral relativism gets applied incorrectly and specific aspects are not taken into account. Example: if a man comes from Culture A but lives in Culture B and knows what it expects of him, he should be expected not to transgress against the norms of Culture B. Example: the Muslim men living in Britain who killed a woman in their family for her unwillingness to act according to the rules of their specific Muslim culture. Misapplied cultural relativism says they are not immoral because they obeyed the norms of their original culture. True cultural relativism says that they are immoral because they expected to obey the rules of British law and the woman they killed deserved the protection of British law. Now if they had all been living in their native land and these same events had occurred, things would not have been so clear. Maybe their specific culture was immoral. Maybe we would judge their actions as immoral. But can we say that they themselves are immoral? Here things get blurry.

Let's have a few more. Alexander Hamilton participates in a duel during a time when duels are common. Is he immoral for doing this? Now let's say Barack Obama participates in a duel. This is not lawful in our day and age. Would this action be immoral on his part? Another one. Thomas Jefferson keeps slaves. Bill Clinton keeps slaves. Are their actions equally immoral? It seems we're getting at a few things here. One man acts within the law, and another man breaks it. One man acts within acceptable societal norms, another man breaks them. Is the law always moral? If not, to what degree is it immoral? What about during political revolutions? Yes it gets blurry, but cultural relativism should not be viewed as invalid.

And remember, one famously quoted reason that we have freedom of speech, and no I don't know who said this, is because we can never be so sure of our own correctness as to call an idea wrong.

JE: Well said. You'll notice that when I'm criticizing the use of the term "moral relativism" (or "moral clarity") it's because I think they're being misused. In American politics, "moral clarity" usually means if WE do it, it's OK, but if THEY do it, it's wrong. "Moral relativism" is the phrase used to discredit the opposite argument. Both are used too simplistically.

Oh Jim,

Why can't you just accept that all human behavior can be reduced to "Right" and "Left" (or red and blue, if you are a visual learner --and therefore Left)?

It is so much more simple this way, purest dialectic, without all of the bothersome "synthesis" crap to muddy it up. Its the way that God (Right) or Mother Nature (Left) intended it to be. I have Venn diagram in my other suit that proves it.

Clearly you being Left-Wired have launched your insidious, vindictive assault on Mahr (or Mahar, or something like that) as a reflective response as natural and normal for people like you as an eye tearing up when a speck of dust floats in there. All of your "thinking" and "analysis" is merely a psychological defense to feebly cling to your base notion of free will. Clearly you previously loved what's his face's previous stuff (especially that Blasphemy movie of his, I just know how much you loved that!). Accept the nature of the world Jim. Know your mind and just flow, just react. Be free. Open the pod bay door. Don't mess with Mister In-Between.

Oh, as for that other stuff. I don't much care for Jokes.

--Al

Chris, you hit the nail on the head about Christgau. Even when he comes to a conclusion that I agree with (PJ Harvey's "Stories From the City, Stories From the Sea" is an A+ without question)his critical analysis, language and reasoning are BAFFLING. What's more, there's a tone of such superiority and snark that his opinion is basically invalidated because he can't get past his own absurd egotism. It's not real criticism because there's no erudition. Just snarky, wordy blurbs. The Dean has no clothes.

I agree completely with the fraustration at people who have the same opinion as you but used illogical means to draw the same conclusion. I recently defended a friend's position in an argument because I shared the same belief. As our (mostly) friendly debate continued I came to realize that my friend had based his opinion on information from a blog and something a co-worker had told him. Both of his sources of information were very incorrect about the facts of the issue, getting even some basic historical information wrong. At that point all I could do was give the evidence I had from a more valid news source to the group as a whole and walk away. You can't argue against somebody's blind faith in any belief, not matter what you try.

*note, I left the topic and opions on it out of the above in the spirit of your critique on Bill Maher. It doesn't matter what the position is if your opinion doesn't have any empircal backing.

For me, satire is about choosing the right target. I can think of many prominent white men (ie. current and powerful congresscritters, governors, media types) who are better suited to this one item.

All the code words, dog-whistles, unreconstructedness, enablers/base players, and Byrd is the best target?

Jim, I think you just explained why I keep reading your blog! I don't believe there's one single movie we'd agree on and I keep shaking my head at your verdicts - but I always find your thoughts stimulating and your theoretical observations very very spot-on. And that's much more interesting than reading someone who just likes the same things I do but can't make a worthwhile argument about them.

Now if they had all been living in their native land and these same events had occurred, things would not have been so clear. Maybe their specific culture was immoral. Maybe we would judge their actions as immoral. But can we say that they themselves are immoral? Here things get blurry.

Things would have been just as clear. And the act would not have been wrong "in Britain" because of British law, or British social norms. It's always wrong to kill. It's always wrong to hurt a sentient creature. These are moral absolutes. They are obvious to anyone who's bothered to really look. Not blurry at all.

Let's have a few more. Alexander Hamilton participates in a duel during a time when duels are common. Is he immoral for doing this?

Participating in a duel was probably the least immoral act of Alexander Hamilton's life. And no, at the time it was not any more immoral than it is now - it was, then as now, more foolish than immoral, and where it was immoral, was only so in that it could very well result in the death of another person, and in that it was rooted in vanity and pride. There's a story in Brothers Karamazov, of Zossima, about a duel. It was, of course, in the time when (according to your premise) duels were not immoral (because somehow, in your conception, what is socially acceptable is moral), and I encourage you to read it and see what he did. Zossima in that book is a good example of absolute moral behavior - not relatively moral. The relative part would have to do only with some of the Christian stuff he couches his goodness in. But the behavior itself would be moral in any culture, whether the culture recognized it as such or not. "Do not hurt" is always moral. "Love" is always moral. Anything else can change.

Thomas Jefferson keeps slaves. Bill Clinton keeps slaves. Are their actions equally immoral?

Of course they are. There's a line in Marcus Aurelius that, though not referring to this, I believe applies to it: "Everything which is in any way beautiful is beautiful in itself, and terminates in itself, not having praise as part of itself. Neither worse then nor better is a thing made by being praised." An act has an absolute existence, free from any context. Keeping a slave in ancient Sumeria is the same as keeping a slave in Philadelphia today. It's still just one person doing that particular thing to another person. And as the same act it's as wrong, or as right, or as neutral, one time and place as another. I wonder about people who rely on society to dictate their moral views. What would you be in a war zone or some other lawless state? There are many times and places in the world where the rules and the social norms seem to go away all at once. I would hope if I ever found myself in such a situation, the people around me believed in the same couple moral absolutes I do.

One man acts within the law, and another man breaks it. One man acts within acceptable societal norms, another man breaks them. Is the law always moral? If not, to what degree is it immoral? What about during political revolutions? Yes it gets blurry, but cultural relativism should not be viewed as invalid.

Laws are not here for anyone's moral improvement. As for political revolutions, that's definitely a tough call, but not for the reasons you cite (ie, the legality of revolutions - again, think of who's writing the laws). I personally wouldn't do anything revolutionary in that way, and I have very little faith in man's ability to ever govern his fellow man fairly, or acquire power and wield it responsibly and justly. At the same time, if a non-totalitarian, anti-capitalist revolution were going on, I would have to support it, even if only from a distance. But of course every revolution is necessarily totalitarian in nature, and any promise of changing afterward is tough to trust. Which should make you think, considering every government now in existence is the product of a revolution of one kind or another. But you should divorce in your mind 'law' from 'morality'. The two are hardly even related, unless as opposites.

To compare slapstick with pun-tification as a lowly form of comedy is insulting to those who consider the pun a simple work of art.

The pun enables humankind to connect humor with its understanding of language. The pun represents linguistic duality, it is truly worthy wordplay, and I don't believe I have ever heard a bad one. Pun intended: you deserve a "pun"ch for that line.

DylanG:

I wonder where you were when Jim was lambasting Maher for Religulous, despite the fact that Jim himself is an atheist?

It goes back to the quote at the top. He hates people who argue for his point of view poorly. This isn't the first time he's taken Maher to task.

But I know this, because I've been reading Jim for awhile now. It's almost as if context is important?

Also: It's not terribly controversial to say Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert are legitimately funny. Stewart's been doing standup and talk-show gigs for at least a couple decades now, and has been hilarious long before The Daily Show. Likewise Colbert.

Maher is and always has been a second-rate Dennis Miller.

Ken,

I have read Jim's criticism of Religulous. However, as you say, context is important. Jim was blogging the Toronto International Film Festival at the time and was, hence, writing about the movies being shown.

In this instance, he is complaining about Maher's end-of-the-show comment. Maher has them nearly every show for over three years now. Jim has never spoken out about one until Maher offered criticism of Obama.

I don't doubt that Jim dislikes people who argue his point of view poorly. The question is whether he dislikes people who argue their point of views conflicting to his. I'm not saying that Jim is necessairly guilty of this, but it's a legitimate question/concern. Left-leaning media outlets, newspapers, etc, have been attacking anyone who dare speak out against Obama. It is a way of silencing those who oppose you by demonizing them, discrediting them, etc. Jim, with the exception of his article on Religulous, has never felt the need to lambast Maher until now. If the concern isn't Maher's dislike of Obama, but his poor joke telling, why wait until Maher criticized Obama? Why not criticize some of the hacks offering tired jokes on George Bush for the past eight years? There have been numerous.

Once again, I'm not saying that Jim is necessairly doing this; just that it is a legitimate concern, as many people are doing this to silence criticism of Obama.

JE: Dylan, this is where I think it gets absurd. What is the "criticism" that is being "silenced"? You seem to assume that all "criticism" is created equal, that it's about "black eyes" and "feathers in one's cap" (see "Catch-22") -- but what about the substance? Maher supports Obama -- he says he's "still a fan" right there in his op-ed -- but I don't care. His attempt at humor is lame, and this wasn't just another TV monologue. I don't watch his show, so I wouldn't even have known about it except that it got a lot of publicity. What Maher offered is not much of a criticism at all, and that's the point I was making. It's dumb to treat "he's appearing on TV too much" as a legitimate political criticism. I have my own criticisms of Obama and Maher has nothing to do with them. I wonder if he's going to get behind a single-payer healthcare option, and what his strategy is going to be. I wonder why he seems to be so inept when dealing with gay civil rights (DADT, DOMA). But when Maher got all the attention for this particular monologue/op-ed, it was based on a premise I found ridiculous and insulting to the adult population. Let him criticize Obama on matters of substance, not for doing too many photo-ops on TV. THAT would be political humor. What Maher just did was hacky stand-up that somehow made it to the editorial page of the LA Times. If Maher were taken as seriously as Carlos Mencia or Gallagher I wouldn't pay any attention to him, either.

JE said:

[i]Let [Maher] criticize Obama on matters of substance[/i]

Jim, I appreciate that you are not familiar with Maher's show, but Kevin Drum's blog raises a point mentioned by Bill Maher in the very monologue you have a beef with (and a week earlier too!):

Kevin Drum: "A little bit more fire in the belly would be welcome."

Bill Maher: "I never thought I'd say this, but actually, what [Obama] needs, in his personality, is a little George Bush."

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewmruk69SIo

I agree with your graceful and well-elucidated argument, Jim. Ideas without reason or substance are the bane of politics and political discussion. Nonetheless, your comments on Bill Maher's routine feel a little reactionary. His show does spark debate and his comments often have a (heavy-handed) poignancy.

You would never be a good Mexican. Our favorite pastime is to tell jokes...from kindergarten to the grave. Both amateurs and stand ups tell jokes, and someone who knows how to tell one is a big a hero as Father Hidalgo.

Must be a cultural thing.

JE: In other ways I think I would be a good Mexican, though.